Outline the differences between the electoral systems for the US Presidency, the US Senate and the House of Representatives

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Outline the differences between the electoral systems for the US Presidency, the US Senate and the House of Representatives. What advantages did the framers of the constitution see in creating these differences? Do they continue to be advantageous or problematical in modern America? This essay will discuss the stated electoral systems, their purposes with regards to the framers of the constitution and their problems as three separate entities. As with any political system, problems with the issues of representation are inevitable. The problems of the electoral system in the US are clearly illustrated with the current Presidential elections but this will be discussed later in the essay. The concept of divided government and questions of popular mandate as well as the deviation from the original ideals and intentions of the constitution's framers will be discussed also. This essay will also explore the link between these three separate entities. Firstly, to tackle the issue of Presidential election. The population does not directly elect the presidency; an electoral college elects it. Each state plus the District of Columbia, has a number of members in the Electoral College equal to the number of congressmen and senators representing it. The President is voted for every four years and it is down to the individual states to decide how their Electoral College votes are cast. ...read more.

Middle

The two-year term was seen as a way of ensuring this, as the voters are unlikely to forgive and forget any major grievances that they had with a representative, in such a short time. As James Madison explains in 'Federalist No.57': "The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government. The means relied on this form of government for preventing their degeneracy are numerous and various. The most effectual one is such a limitation of the term of appointments as will maintain a proper responsibility to the people."8 The idea was that those elected to the House of Representatives would be directly responsible to the voters who put them there. It is worth noting though, that the framers concept of the voting franchise was much different than that of today. Native Americans, Blacks and women of any race were excluded from the franchise.9 This is also tied in with the other constitutional idea of no taxation without actual representation; this leads to virtual representation10, which is when those who actually vote are also seen to be voting for those who do not, either by right or by choice. So it can be seen that the framers' design of the voting system for the lower house was put in place to ensure that the section of government they saw as having the most popular influence in the republic, would be directly accountable to the people who had voted for them. ...read more.

Related AS and A Level United States essays

2000: a Washington DC elector should have cast a ballot for Democrat Al Gore; instead they abstained citing the city's lack of congressional representation. Whilst this may not have made a difference in the election, in such a close race every ECV counted.

Obama, Truman, Nixon, Kennedy and Johnson were all Senators before becoming President. This in itself is also the cause of another example of the power and importance of the Senate - the frequent seeking of re-election to the Senate by House members.

to the next, but that it universally thought that the United States is the prime example of a federal state. He concludes by saying: "By the federal principle I mean the method of dividing powers so that the general and regional governments are each, within a sphere, co-ordinate and independent.

With respect to Article 1 in relation to checks and Balances, all actions of the President would be subjected to scrutiny by congress and the senate. Furthermore Congress would be subjected to regular review, with clear terms of office and particulars defined.

How can people today know exactly what the creators of the constitution meant when they wrote it over two hundred years ago? Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution and therefore it should not be allowed simply through an 'interpretation' or an amendment.

If the SNP were to gain a majority in the Scottish parliament, then a sub-national level of government enhances rather than diminishes claims for independence (Studlar, 1999, 52). This is the extremity of possible circumstances, but could prove a reality.

In 1997, the Supreme Court declared the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional, following the case of Reno v American Civil Liberties Union. In Clinton v New York City (1998), it declared the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional. The judiciary can also declare actions of any member of the executive branch to be unconstitutional.

Ashbee identifies multiple reasons for why this could be; he recognises that those with fewer or no educational qualifications ?have the most conservative attitudes?. He also states that ?Reaganism had a particular appeal to white men?, possibly in the way that Regan spoke in a masculine language about confronting America?s enemies and tackling crime.